It's kind of pathetic, Asa, that the most prominent leaders of the scientific establishment are too clever by more than half and dismiss consciousness as something not worth exploring. Materialist science can't explain it, so "[sentience] might as well not exist," says Steven Pinker in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature: "the mystery [of consciousness] remains a mystery, a topic not for science . . . but for late-night dorm room sessions." Your latest insights into the "objective reality of the inner world," however, have me wondering about the relationship between the individual and collective consciousness. If Bergson was on to something and consciousness doesn't reside in the brain, then where are our memories 'contained'? And how does an individual mind merge with that collective inner reality? Bergson said, for example, that there's no clear division between instinct and intelligence but instead they exist on a sort of continuum, that there are no stable states in the organized world, per se, but only continuous transitions. I wonder if the same idea might apply to the relations between individual and collective consciousness.
Amazing how unabashed the Pinkers of this world are when it comes to making off-the-wall pronunciamentos. That's a pretty amusing stance, that a phenomenon may as well not exist if science can't explain it. Sounds like insanity to me, like an extreme form of solipsism: let's call it "scientistic solipsism."
Thanks for the Bergson reminders. I think it may be time to reread Creative Evolution. My guess is that the whole point of meditations focused on quieting the mind are effective at bringing us closer to the collective and to our instincts and intuitions precisely because the brain has a way of insulating us from that, perhaps creating the ego image and that sense of individual consciousness.
Love this stuff because in organic brains as in silicon, the 'true" architectural secrets and underpinnings of their incredible efficiency and flexibility are still largely unknown. For readers tired of the AI babble (as am I) but interested in the strategic thought around silicon intelligence and development, see On A Measure Of Intelligence by F. Chollett and The Bitter Lesson by Rich Sutton.
Very engaging material, new to me as your topics tend to be. I am always interested to hear somebody described as a "big brain," since to me that would suggest a big head also, although I am being overly literal here, I realize. But I've never heard of people, successful or otherwise, who have no brain, as per your examples. There again your post brings a smile. It turns out that "big brain" is not a compliment and "no brain" not necessarily an insult.
Thanks, Allen. Every time I read "a man with an IQ of 126, a graduate of the University of Sheffield with a first-class honors degree in mathematics, and by all accounts bright and perfectly ordinary, had no detectable brain."--it makes me laugh. There's a brilliant irony there, like something out of Swift.
It's kind of pathetic, Asa, that the most prominent leaders of the scientific establishment are too clever by more than half and dismiss consciousness as something not worth exploring. Materialist science can't explain it, so "[sentience] might as well not exist," says Steven Pinker in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature: "the mystery [of consciousness] remains a mystery, a topic not for science . . . but for late-night dorm room sessions." Your latest insights into the "objective reality of the inner world," however, have me wondering about the relationship between the individual and collective consciousness. If Bergson was on to something and consciousness doesn't reside in the brain, then where are our memories 'contained'? And how does an individual mind merge with that collective inner reality? Bergson said, for example, that there's no clear division between instinct and intelligence but instead they exist on a sort of continuum, that there are no stable states in the organized world, per se, but only continuous transitions. I wonder if the same idea might apply to the relations between individual and collective consciousness.
Amazing how unabashed the Pinkers of this world are when it comes to making off-the-wall pronunciamentos. That's a pretty amusing stance, that a phenomenon may as well not exist if science can't explain it. Sounds like insanity to me, like an extreme form of solipsism: let's call it "scientistic solipsism."
Thanks for the Bergson reminders. I think it may be time to reread Creative Evolution. My guess is that the whole point of meditations focused on quieting the mind are effective at bringing us closer to the collective and to our instincts and intuitions precisely because the brain has a way of insulating us from that, perhaps creating the ego image and that sense of individual consciousness.
Love this stuff because in organic brains as in silicon, the 'true" architectural secrets and underpinnings of their incredible efficiency and flexibility are still largely unknown. For readers tired of the AI babble (as am I) but interested in the strategic thought around silicon intelligence and development, see On A Measure Of Intelligence by F. Chollett and The Bitter Lesson by Rich Sutton.
"may you live in interesting times, etc etc"
Thanks RDM for those recommendations. Definitely of interest here.
Very engaging material, new to me as your topics tend to be. I am always interested to hear somebody described as a "big brain," since to me that would suggest a big head also, although I am being overly literal here, I realize. But I've never heard of people, successful or otherwise, who have no brain, as per your examples. There again your post brings a smile. It turns out that "big brain" is not a compliment and "no brain" not necessarily an insult.
Thanks, Allen. Every time I read "a man with an IQ of 126, a graduate of the University of Sheffield with a first-class honors degree in mathematics, and by all accounts bright and perfectly ordinary, had no detectable brain."--it makes me laugh. There's a brilliant irony there, like something out of Swift.